KANCHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order passed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, dated 24th April, 1979 (annexure A) and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, dated 28th May, 1981 (annexure B ).

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. During the period 27th October, 1973 to 13th November, 1974 the petitioner had sold goods worth Rs. 2,15,728 to various registered dealers and an assessment was duly made on 6th October, 1977 by respondent No. 2 and the tax was paid. It is alleged that these sales were liable to concessional rate of tax as the sales were made to registered dealers who had given declarations under form XII-A which were submitted with the return and therefore, concessional rate of tax was imposed on these sales. In February, 1981 a demand was affixed on the premises of the petitioner from which he learnt that the assessments have been reopened under Section 19 of the Act and a demand of Rs. 10,786 has been made. The petitioner applied for a copy of the order and preferred a revision before respondent No. 3 under Section 39 of the Act. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order on the ground that the reopening of the account under Section 19 of the Act was illegal as no opportunity was given to the petitioner and that Rule 20-A (1) (v) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 as amended, has not been followed. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 also rejected the revision petition by his order dated 28th May, 1981. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 45 of the Act for rectification which was also rejected by order dated 7th December, 1982, and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents, facts are not in dispute. It is admitted that a declaration in form XII-A of the purchasing dealer was submitted along with the return for assessment of tax at a concessional rate. It is alleged that Rule 20-A which was amended by Act No. 25 of 1978 and which came into force on 1st October, 1978 was not of much use. It is contended that the items which were sold were not specified in the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer as articles used as raw material and it was the duty of the selling dealer, i. e. , the petitioner to verify whether the items were specified in the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. It is also contended that initial assessment was made without any enquiry as to whether the items were specified in the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer but later on the mistake was detected and therefore, proceedings were taken under Section 19 (1) for reopening of the assessment. It is further contended that Rule 20-A (1) (v) could be given retrospective operation only if the purchasing dealer had submitted an application for compounding by payment of Rs. 100 but as the purchasing dealer had made no such application, the question of giving restrospective benefit to the petitioner does not arise. In the return, reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Lalloobhai B. Patel and Co. Ltd. , 1976 (9) VKN 125 (FB ).